THE Queen has had to do some fairly objectionable things over the years in the name of politics and diplomacy but few will damage her reputation more than ending 300 years of a free press.

The Queen has more wisdom than her Cabinet and the official opposition put together [EXPRESS]

On Wednesday she is due to preside over a Privy Council meeting at which the politicians who tell her what to do hope to finalise plans for a Royal Charter which aims to bring, in a roundabout way, State regulation to Britain’s newspapers.

She has hosted monsters, such as Ugandan tyrant Idi Amin who murdered up to half a million of his own people, celebrated the anniversary of coups with despots, and given royal assent to ill-conceived or badly-drafted laws that should never have been given the time of day by Parliament. But will anything be such a blot on her legacy as a charter giving the UK’s shabby politicians the right to interfere in what the press says and does?

At the excellent Battle of Ideas debates in London two weekends ago, experts including Professor Tim Luckhurst of the University of Kent railed against the politicians’ use of secretive, undemocratic, unaccountable organisations such as the monarchy and the Privy Council to try to force through State-control of the press.

In the wake of allegations of misbehaviour by journalists on certain newspapers, a head of steam has built up at Westminster for a clampdown on the worst excesses of the British press, even though those alleged excesses were already covered by the criminal law.

British newspaper owners and journalists accept that the old Press Complaints Commission was not fit for purpose and that regulation of the press needs to be strengthened – just not by politicians. They have put forward their own alternative plan for a strengthened regulator that does not involve politicians.

But MPs, furious after they were caught abusing the parliamentary expenses system and subsequently hit in the pocket, have sought their revenge by seeking to take control of the process. And, it seems, the Queen, as a constitutional monarch bound by the will of Parliament and the views of her ministers, is about to nod through their plan.

She has been warned by seven publishing and international media freedom organisations that signing a “toxic” charter to establish a new UK press regulator controlled, albeit at arm’s length, by politicians and the State, will damage Britain’s reputation in the world.

In a letter last week they warned it would have a “chilling impact” on British journalism and would be used by Commonwealth and other foreign governments as an excuse to muzzle the press in their own countries.

Does The Queen have any choice but to agree to the imposition of the charter? [PA]

Royal spin doctors try to bully journalists into reporting the news the way the Royal Family wants it reported

That’s the Commonwealth, the group of mainly former British Empire nations that the Queen sees as her personal legacy, a group of 53 nations intended as a beacon of democracy and traditional Western values such as freedom of expression. Does she really want to go down in history as the monarch who gave succour to dictators by ending 300 years of press freedom in Britain?

Does she have any choice but to agree to the imposition of the charter, which is likely to be resisted through the courts by UK newspaper publishers intent on preserving the right to freedom of speech?

Well, as a constitutional monarch she is bound broadly by what her ministers and Parliament desire. But as the monarch, she also has the right to advise, caution and warn her ministers if she thinks they are making a grave mistake.

After more than 60 years on the throne, she has more wisdom than her Cabinet and the official opposition put together. It is time for her to use that wisdom to rein back David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, the party leaders all supporting state regulation.

As monarch, she stands theoretically above the fray. But actually, on this issue, she is not a disinterested party. Her independence is compromised. In the past few years, her family and household have become eager participants in efforts to stop the press publishing stories that they perceive as damaging or intrusive. It’s easy often to be sympathetic towards the royals if newspapers or photographers overstep the mark, although for most journalists the best definition of news remains: “What somebody, somewhere wants to suppress.”

But Prince Philip’s old advice on how the monarchy should treat criticism from the press and public – never complain, never explain – has gone out of the window.

Royal spin doctors try to bully journalists into reporting the news the way the Royal Family wants it reported. Increasingly, aggressive attempts are made to stop newspapers and magazines publishing photographs and stories that in days gone by would have run without any complaints from courtiers who would have seen them as fair game.

Prince Charles has been to court to stop a newspaper printing extracts from a diary he kept and circulated to a large number of friends. His elder son, Prince William, has in particular, tried to create legal precedents to develop a privacy law by the backdoor in Britain.

The Queen too has tried to stop the decades-old practice of photographers taking pictures from a public road of her family walking, shooting and riding around Sandringham, her 20,000-acre estate in Norfolk that is criss-crossed by public footpaths.

Her efforts have led to police threatening photographers with arrest for taking photographs of William and Harry playing football on a village football pitch that technically is owned by a private estate. Even more obscene was the sight a few years ago of police confiscating the cameras of members of the public who had turned up to see the Queen and her family walking into church at Sandringham.

Make no mistake, the Queen and her family are by no means above the fray in this matter. For that reason, among many, she should find a way of telling her Privy Council that she does not think it is right for her or any royal body to be involved in efforts to regulate the press.